Today Airbus builds 6 times more A330 than Boeing B767 and order backlog for A330 is about 5 times higher.
“Yes, because unlike the 767, EADS has discovered how to have ONE KC-30 in TWO places at the same time.”
No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.
“Only if the ramp is stressed for a higher load bearing capacity.”
And how big is the difference? How many Air Force Bases already have to accommodate the heavier C-17?
“Because unlike the KC-30, an aircraft that CANNOT carry extra fuel without exceeding its MTOW. The 767 can carry an additional 40,000+ lbs of fuel before exceeding its MTOW.”
Maybe true for Australian KC-30A but are you really sure about the 767?
A basic 767-300F can carry additional 60,000 lbs in relation to internal fuel capacity of 160,000 lbs.
412,000 lbs – (188,000 lbs + 162,000) = 62,000 lbs
MTOW - (OEW + fuel weight)
According to the offered fuel load of over 200,000 lbs just 20,000 lbs are left for boom and other refueling equipment, additional fuel tanks and cockpit protection.
BTW, did you know wings for KC-45 originate from A340. That’s why an A330 got such a huge fuel load.
MTOW of an A340 is at least 610,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 40,960 US gal.
MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.
BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.
“IF the USAF used the LD3 container, this might matter.”
How do you think troop’s gear is moved on leased or rented commercial aircrafts (e.g. CRAF) while traveling to Manas AB?
“The USAF uses the 463L pallet, the 767 can carry 19 on the main deck and 5 on the lower deck, the KC-30 can carry 24 on the main deck and 8 on the lower deck.”
A 767 without additional fuel tanks can carry 5 additional 463L pallets on the lower deck. A KC-767AT couldn’t. An A330MRTT can carry up to 26 463L pallets on main deck. KC-45 is limited to 24 due to galleys. During the virtual tour on http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/ I counted just 18 pallets inside KC-767NG.
I’ll still have to refer to KC-767AT because Boeing dislikes unveiling some facts about the NG.
I refer to the A330MRTT as KC-45 then referring to aircraft offered to USAF during last competition.
“Today Airbus builds 6 times more A330 than Boeing B767 and order backlog for A330 is about 5 times higher.”
Another fine example of EU taxpayer subsidizing industry OR perhaps EADS/Airbus current marketing pitch is “buy our planes at cheap discount prices”
I believe that the 767 still has a higher production number (986) than the A330 (703).
A common practice to extend the life of a production line. Boeing has keep the 767 line open since 2004, delivering 68 aircraft, an average of 12 aircraft per year and since 2004 has gained orders for 110 aircraft.
Previously Boeing elected not to extend the 757 production line, from 45 deliveries in 2001, to 14 in 2003, to just 2 in2005 when the line closed. Boeing also closed the 727 line quickly going from 94 delivered in 1981, to 26 in 1982 to just 8 in 1984 when the line closed.
Airbus keep the A310 line open for 9 years without a single order/delivery and A300 line open for 12 years with deliveries averaging one aircraft every 6 weeks or 9.4 aircraft per year.
“No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.”
Sorry, the KC-30 can be in 1.9 places at the same time.
Still trying to figure out that Northrop Grumman program.
The KC-30 carries just 30% more fuel burns that fuel 40% faster but is worth 1.9 KC-135R?
“And how big is the difference? How many Air Force Bases already have to accommodate the heavier C-17?”
I believe the concern is regarding parking ramps in other (third world) countries.
“Maybe true for Australian KC-30A but are you really sure about the 767?
A basic 767-300F can carry additional 60,000 lbs in relation to internal fuel capacity of 160,000 lbs.
412,000 lbs – (188,000 lbs + 162,000) = 62,000 lbs MTOW - (OEW + fuel weight)”
MTOW 412,000 lbs – OEW 188,000 lbs (my estimate for the KC-767AT/NG is 190k) = 224,000 lbs.
Boeing claims a max fuel load of “202,000 lbs +” they could mean 202,100 lbs or 222,000 lbs anything is possible.
“According to the offered fuel load of over 200,000 lbs just 20,000 lbs are left for boom and other refueling equipment, additional fuel tanks and cockpit protection.”
The difference in OEW (from wiki & Boeing’s 767 pages 10 & 12) for the 767-3ER and the 767-2ER is 17,140 lbs, figure 12,000 is the fuselage weight difference.
Based on the 767-3F OEW of 188,100 (wt of GE or PW) minus 12,000 lbs for the shorter -200 fuselage, the OEW of the 767-2LRF is 176,000 lbs + 20,000 lbs for everything = 196,000 lbs. MTOW 412,000 lbs – 196,000 lbs = 216,000 lbs available.
“BTW, did you know wings for KC-45 originate from A340. That’s why an A330 got such a huge fuel load.”
Yes, the A330/A340 share the same wings.
The A340 another heavily subsidized Airbus FAILURE to design a commercial airliner to compete against the 777.
The A340-300 orders/deliveries 218/218, the 777-200ER orders/deliveries 430/413
“MTOW of an A340 is at least 610,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 40,960 US gal.”
More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.
Did I miss the announcement regarding EADS submitting the A340 for KC-X?
MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.”
More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.
“BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.”
Fuel capacity is still 246,000 lbs.
“How do you think troop’s gear is moved on leased or rented commercial aircrafts (e.g. CRAF) while traveling to Manas AB?
You mean the ones that fly in on commercial or chartered civilian aircraft?
Last time I checked commercial or chartered or CRAF aircraft are NOT OWNED by the USAF.
And I’ve seen 747 Freighter using the 463L when flying cargo charters for the USAF.
“A 767 without additional fuel tanks can carry 5 additional 463L pallets on the lower deck. A KC-767AT couldn’t.”
My understanding is that the additional fuel tanks will be either pallet mounted or in LD8 sized tanks, similar to the LD6 sized auxiliary fuel tanks used by the 777LR. These tanks should be removable allowing an additional 5 pallets to be carried on cargo missions, although whether the USAF would do so is another question.
“ An A330MRTT can carry up to 26 463L pallets on main deck. KC-45 is limited to 24 due to galleys.”
24 or 26 pallet is just more empty and 95% of the time UNUSED space, plus the 65,000 lbs of aircraft needed to support it that EADS hopes to saddle the USAF with. And like last time, will the KC-30 fail to meet several requirements regarding air refueling all aircraft using current procedures?
“During the virtual tour on http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/ I counted just 18 pallets inside KC-767NG.”
Interesting, they need to slow down the cargo demo or allow you to pause it.
“I’ll still have to refer to KC-767AT because Boeing dislikes unveiling some facts about the NG.”
I tend to use 767AT/NG, nor am I a fan of Boeing’s “I’ve got a secret” regarding the 767NG.
“I refer to the A330MRTT as KC-45 then referring to aircraft offered to USAF during last competition.”
I do not believe Northrop Grumman offered the KC-45, they offered a KC-30 based aircraft for the KC-X (KC-45) selection.
The USAF has stated that the winner of the KC-X would be designated as the KC-45A.
Northrop Grumman used the “KC-45A” to describe its aircraft after the selection, referring to it as the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” and completely avoiding any reference the actual origin of the aircraft.
After the selection and contract were overturned by the GAO, Northrop Grumman continued to used the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” until the USAF “requested” that they cease doing so.
This is my reason from referring to the EADS A330 MRTT as the KC-30.